Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31007872›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2019

Informed Consent in Biomedical Research.

Fida K Dankar, Marton Gergely, Samar K Dankar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Ethical Considerations in Informed Consent: Contrasting Inpatient and Outpatient Laryngectomy Counseling.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Ethics and regulation of neuronal optogenetics in the European Union.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Health Research with Data in a Time of Privacy: Which Information do Patients Want?Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Using provocative design to foster electronic informed consent innovation.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fida K DankarCollege of IT, UAEU, Al Ain, P.O.Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.
Marton GergelyCollege of IT, UAEU, Al Ain, P.O.Box 15551, United Arab Emirates.
Samar K DankarIndependent Scientist, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed consent is the result of tumultuous events in both the clinical and research arenas over the last 100 years. Throughout this time, the notion of informed consent has shifted tremendously, both due to advances in medicine, as well as the type of data being gathered. As such, informed consent has misaligned with the goals of medical research. It is becoming more and more vital to address this chasm, and begin building new frameworks to link this disconnect. Thus, we address three goals in this paper. First, we discuss the history of informed consent and unify the varying definitions of the term. Second, we evaluate the current research on the topic, classify them into themes, and attend to the problems therein. Lastly, we employ these themes of informed consent research mentioned previously to provide guidance and insight for future research in the arena.

Indexed as

Biomedical dataBiomedical researchInformed consentMedical carePrivacy

Identifiers

PMID31007872
PMCPMC6458444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.